The practice of debiting amounts from the account of the deceased member's heir, without granting the right to compensation, constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member - Aggrieved by the order dated 15th March, 2008 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 468 of 2006, the appellant-Shri Modh Patni Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., and others have filed this revision petition before us.

2. There is a delay of two days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Mr. Babubhai Vanmalidas Kapadia (in short the complainant ) had become a member of the Modhi Patni Co-operative Credit Society (in short the 'society ) under the Security Scheme known as SSY. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,500 was debited to his Savings Account and credited to the Scheme Account. As per the provisions of the scheme, in the event of the death of any member of the aforesaid scheme, the heirs of the member would get Rs. 1 lakh. Accordingly, the wife of the present complainant had become a member of the scheme and an amount of Rs. 1,900 was debited from her account on 1st April, 2001 and on 26th March, 2002 Rs. 1,100 was debited from her account. Mrs. Lalita Ben died on 2nd April, 2002 at Surat, intimation of which was given to the Society. As the Society did not pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the District Forum claiming Rs. 1 lakh along with interest @ 18% per annum with Rs. 10,000 towards physical and mental strain and cost.

4. The District Forum held that "in this case the fact of complainant's wife Lalita Ben being the member is undoubtedly in existence since years, and lastly, the opponents, with an intention of not to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant, have wrongly debited certain amount in the account of Lalita Ben, and, thereby, have made unsuccessful attempt to snatch away the right of the complainant. Hence, as the arguments submitted on behalf of opponents does not deserve acceptance, there are sufficient and reasonable reasons to allowing this complaint." Accordingly, the District Forum ordered as follows :

"The Opponent No. 1 - Shri Modh Patni Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and Nos. 2 and 3, President and Honorary Secretary respectively shall, jointly and severally, shall pay to the claimant, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh under SSY (Social Security Scheme) being compensation towards the death of complainant's wife Lalita Ben, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from 4th May, 2002 till actual realization thereof.

It is also specifically ordered to the present opponents that, they shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 towards physical and mental stress and Rs. 1,000 towards costs of this application to the complainant."

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 24th March, 2006, the present petitioners have filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed by passing a detailed and well-reasoned order. Hence, this revision petition.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha, and are astonished to see the following note printed in the application form pertaining to the said Security Scheme (SSY), which reads as follows:

"If the prescribed form for being a member in this scheme will not be filled and will not be a member, then also proportionate amount will be debited compulsorily from his account. But his heirs will not get the right of compensation."

7. This clearly proves that the required amount towards the scheme was compulsorily debited from the accouhnt of Smt. Lalita Ben. This clause smacks of the unfair trade practice as envisgaged by Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned and detailed order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.